Such figures only add fuel to demands for a pull-out by coalition forces.

Americans vote in mid-term congressional elections next month and must wrestle with a dilemna: should US troops stay and be bogged down in what seems to be an unstoppable civil war or should they withdraw and be accused of abandoning Iraq?

Bush seems intent on finishing the job, claiming a viable democracy can still be built in Iraq.

But is this really possible?

According to the Watergate-busting journalist, Bob Woodward, the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, warned Bush before the invasion that if the US "broke" Iraq they would "own" it.

In his latest bestseller State of Denial, Woodward accuses the White House of not telling Americans and the US Congress just how bad things are Iraq. Moreover, he asserts that Bush and his advisers are even kidding themselves with bogus claims of progress.

Australians, too, are worried about this country's participation in Iraq.

A new Herald/ACNielsen poll shows six out of 10 Australian voters think we should pull out our troops. The Prime Minister, John Howard, disagrees.

The figures say it's a mess. What do you say?

Posted
by Geoff SpencerOctober 12, 2006 9:09 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

It's always described in the news as 'sectarian violence', or civil war, but never 'Shiites against Sunnis battle for supremacy. Tthe religion of Peace indeed - is there such a thing?

I bet the average 'Joe' probably doesn't get off his a&& to find the word sectarian in the dictionary. This is religious hatred of the sort that has afflicted mankind from the beginning.

My militantly atheistic friend says anyone that is religious is truly deluded and insane, and I believe him more and more.

Anyway, here come the anti-US rants, start postin.... now!

Posted by: BenWah on October 11, 2006 8:31 PM

In the Middle East, as in Africa, this sort of shit has been going on since time immemorial, and we want to bring our "values" and "democracies" to these people?

Get real, it won't happen overnight. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't lend a hand, where we can.

Sure, we will have to cop a lot of ridicule and knock-backs. That's typical of life anyway. Better to try tho, than to throw our hands in the air and just give up

I'd rather be an optimist than a pessimist.

Posted by: Steve Rogers on October 11, 2006 10:06 PM

Yup, it’s a mess alright. And I speak as someone who supported the war initially. I figured that anything, anything, had to be better than Saddam. He had been a blight on the international scene for too long, and his departure was well overdue. However, the Middle East is like Africa and you can never say you’ve hit rock bottom. It can always get worse, as it has.
Of course they were helped in their plunge by the unbelievable incompetence of Paul Bremmer (the first US ‘Administrator’) and Rumsfeld (not to forget Bush).
The leftoids have adopted a smug ‘told-you-so’ attitude. However, although they opposed the war, they opposed for the wrong reasons, namely that it was just ‘wrong’ to invade. The politics of symbolism placed the abstract ideal of non-interference above the wretched reality experienced by millions Iraqis during the years of sanctions (during which time Saddam built 30 palaces for himself).
I disagree. The moral demerit points of invading were more than outweighed by the moral pluses of getting rid of a monster. As for those weapons, even those who opposed the war (the Germans, French, and Richard Butler of UNSCOM, the UN outfit charged with finding WMD) were confident that they existed, but deemed them insufficient reason to invade. As it happened they were right, but only by accident.
Morality was the one thing going for the war. Had it been successful, it would probably have been considered a just campaign, like Britain and the US invading France in 1944. However, even moral wars are invariably judged immoral if they fail. Look at Vietnam.

Posted by: Sholto Douglas on October 11, 2006 11:32 PM

I have expected a huge death count since the coalition of the willing "neutralised" batallions with what I call weapons of mass distruction.
GWB accepted a civilian death count in the war of 30000; this was well below the red cross's number. Lets accept GWB and ask a general if the civilian death count would be as high as 10% of total deaths (civilian + military). I doubt that he would say that they killed that many civilians!
If they did that would make the total death count on GWB's numbers 300000. I have expected it to be a lot higher for a long time.
I have also had a problem with us "good guys" not considering soldiers deaths as important.
The whole thing has stunk from the beginning; it was based on lies (as opposed to misinformation) and our leaders ARE responsible for the deaths.

Posted by: cynic on October 12, 2006 9:30 AM

It would appear to folk looking from the outside in that Saddam was the lesser of two evils.As much as a tyrant he was at least the place was in more control than what it is now.The place is a bigger mess now than it ever was.Those folk have a different mindset and culture to what we have,leave them to their own destiny.Surely by now everyone knows this wasnt about so called wmd.

Posted by: Frank Davie on October 12, 2006 9:33 AM

Al Kaida killed 3000
USA killed 600000

Question: Who is the biggest terrorist?

Posted by: Adam on October 12, 2006 9:38 AM

I disagrre with Steve Rogers - the kind of "shit" he is talking about not only happened (or happens) in Africa and Middle East that he singled out. If he reads the history, he can quite easily see what Europe (pre-dominantly white continent) has gone through. Starting from the Roman age (and the Greeks before them), it has seen countries fighting each other in some form or other. If Mr. Rogers cares to see the last century's history, the two world wars were started and fought by European countries (and the US). If someone comes to me and says that was a long time ago, I would remind him of Bosnia, where a whole people was being wiped out and the Europeans did NOTHING

Posted by: SH on October 12, 2006 9:40 AM

Saddam was the best thing for Iraq. America are so foolish for trying to be heroes and trying to liberate the country. They should not have even got involved they found now weapons of mass destruction or anything. America are just so cocky and they they are good and just saw Saddam as a threat to there own TYRANY and plot to RULE the world as we know it. America is the real criminal and the real dictator in this game. Saddam was the only fair leader Iraq ever had. He showed equality to the muslims and the christians (yes he had a weird way of ruling the country but it did work). The country is a mess now with violence and death around every corner. I have had many family members and friends tell me that Saddam was the best thing for Iraq and it seems that they are right, i have been directly effected by the recent departure of Saddam form iraq and i can tell you now if he was still there it could have been stopped!! I am not muslim, so i am not pledging my alligence to Saddam because he is Muslim but becuase he was the best ruler for iraq even though he was a "tyrant" as the americans wish to call him! Bring Saddam back and you will see how much Iraq will change for the good!! Stop listening to all the "Propaganda" the (American) media keeps feeding us!!

Posted by: Steve on October 12, 2006 9:41 AM

The appalling thing about the US government is that it claims to be surprised.
Could it be more simple than this: violence breeds violence.
George should put his index finger to his temple and say "red" backwards.

Posted by: Tabk on October 12, 2006 9:43 AM

Leave Iraq alone and let them manage. They will do a better job. Except Indonesia & Malaysia no Islamic country is democratic, the world cannot teach them, they have to learn themselves.

Posted by: Concerned on October 12, 2006 9:46 AM

Bush's war has now killed more in Iraq than any ledder they previously had.
Thank you America.

Posted by: jeff king on October 12, 2006 9:46 AM

Hmm, let's see.. the last time I looked the Guiness Book of Records said there were something like 35 years of Peace over the last 5000. Humans basically don't get on, and alwasy seem to fight with their neighbors. The people in my village don't understand why the rest of the world is mad, and won't see reason.

Posted by: Graham on October 12, 2006 9:48 AM

John Howard has damaged our nation in so many ways over the past decade, but I would have at least a little respect for him if he had the courage to admit that committing Australia to war in Iraq was a mistake, which it so obviously was.

Posted by: David on October 12, 2006 9:51 AM

My mummy told me a long time ago "when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

Posted by: Eleanor Lister on October 12, 2006 9:52 AM

SH says "the two world wars were started and fought by European countries (and the US)". I'd argue that Japan had more than a little to do with beginning the sequel's run in the Pacific theatre.

Back on the topic - coalition troops will need to be pulled out of Iraq if the West (the US and its allies) is to avoid conscription in the lead up to the next big intervention (invasion is such an ugly word) - North Koreas...

Posted by: Weade on October 12, 2006 9:53 AM

It wasn't that a bunch of lefties 'told you so'. It was that a whole bunch of middle east experts including ex-security, ex-diplomats, ex-politicians from all sides, were all lining up to forecast EXACTLY what was going to happen before the war was prosecuted.

I think the phrase most widely quoted was "opening the gates of hell".

The neo-con fantasy was about not about freedom and democracy (Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone - anyone?) it was about oil and influence.

They knew the WMDs didn?t exist. Just wait for the papers to finally be released, Sholto.

Mugs like Blair got taken in, Howard used it like he used poor Iraqi refugees to win the 2000 election. The honourable bloke that he isn't - meanwhile Howard and Downer were propping up Saddam through AUSTRALIAN wheat sales!!!

Let's not EVER forget the biggest scandal this country has ever been involved in.

This US Administration used their worst home-soil disaster since Pearl Harbour, to lie to their own people. And worse, they let Osama Bin Laden get away and have allowed Al Queda to grow and recruit.

They also did the invasion on the cheap, then sent over a bunch of Texan morons to run the country like a B&S ball, and got chucked out. And rightly so. There is another new book on the market which describes how nieces, cousins and recent uni graduates (friends of Republicans etc) were sent to the Green Zone to run Iraq!

Sholto - the US and UK controlled Iraqi airspace for 10 years before invading. The regime was collapsing. There were avenues opening up all over the place, to get rid of Saddam. A failed coup every couple of months for instance.

An Administration with a half a brain cell would have been shovelling funds to Republican Guards to do the job themselves.

Wolfowitz has been lying for 30 years. It's on the record. He's mad.

We still have Al Queda, plus Iran, Nth Korea, (and Pakistan) are even more a threat. And Iraq is both blood-bath and training ground.

Plus a million or so young Muslim men who hate us, sprinkled liberally throughout the world.

Come the mid term elections - see the Republicans decimated in the House, in the Senate and the Gubnertorials. Finally.

Waiting for this nation to see through Howard is like waiting for footballers to get sick of dating blondes. (The worst press in the western world and no opposition leader for 10 years - doesn't help)

Posted by: jb on October 12, 2006 10:04 AM

It comes as no suprise that civilian casualty numbers and the general breakdown of Iraq post occupation have been understated by the Bush Administration.
GWB is not facing reality,he never has. The Iraq invasion was based on a deception and most of the world accepted the spin, we know better now.
The murderous Bush Administration need to be brought to justice for the crimes they have committed.
They are fascists who hold no accountability for their attempt to dominate the world and are capable of lies, deceit and manipulation on a massive scale to achieve their objectives.

Wake up World!!!

Posted by: bubbles on October 12, 2006 10:04 AM

at what time will our political leaders be tried for crimes against humantity?

Posted by: david margon on October 12, 2006 10:04 AM

Send Johnny to view the misery he helps cause and see what lies he brings back.

Posted by: jim on October 12, 2006 10:05 AM

Who care about all the right/wrong crap now. Its simple: you make a mess, you clean it up.

Posted by: Reginald Shoe on October 12, 2006 10:05 AM

cut to the chase . the u s invaded iraq to get their hands on that stuff called oil. lots and lots of oil.saddam was just an excuse. there has been any number of mad dictators prior to saddam (Idi Amin springs to mind). where was the u s of a in those days??. one thing was missing OIL. as for the rest ,the arab tribes have been waring since forever ..read your history. we have no right to impose 'our ways' on other cultures. lets face it 'our ways' could do with improvements. thank you.

Posted by: pippa on October 12, 2006 10:05 AM

I don't believe an important element is being addressed in this argument. It's established that the civilian bodies being examined are showing evidence of torture in disproportionately high numbers. The bombings are almost always civilian targets with peripheral occupying forces casualties. So the overall and overwhelming numbers of casualties ARE civilians and not combatants (no disrespect to the service men and woman who have lost their lives in using a term like "combatant"). What is this demonstrating? A distinct DOMESTIC power struggle is happening within occupied Iraq. Islamist, Sectarian and Criminal bodies are responsible for these attrocities (it's well acknowledged that any organised Nationalist resistance is virtually non-evident and the very least not a major factor). Granted, the invading forces didn't read their history books, no foreign invading armies have had long term success in the region. To avoid another Taliban model state eventuating in Iraq, this situation must be addressed. If it is and it's a huge IF,then a "friendly" state like Egypt would not be out of the question in Iraq. Regionalising the country would only inflame countries like Turkey with the Kurds and offer a corridor for militarist extremist states like Iran to walk right into the Shia region. We missed a huge PR opportunity to influence elements of the Islamic world in not consolidating Afghanistan. The Afghan people and leaders welcomed the ousting of the Taliban and virtually none of the issues plaguing Iraq manifested themselves there. Compound this with the flawed justification for invading Iraq. But make no mistake it's a public perception (on both sides of the fence)war that needs to be fought right now. The coalition has to demonstrate some kind of empathy to the Islamic world in order to counter the huge recruitment and anti-coalition sentiment throughout the Islamic and Arab world favouring extremist ideals.

Posted by: Tel... on October 12, 2006 10:05 AM

As sure as there will be US bashers in these sort of debates, there will be those who bash them ie the antidisestablishmentarianists!

Why do people always believe the "get rid of Saddam - he is evil" excuse that the US administration roled out? This was about two things: one - Dubya wanted to complete the job his daddy didn't - kick Saddam's ass all the way out. The other was about control (not ownership) of Iraq's oil reserve. The US didn't want it in the hands of their enemy (who they supported, ironically, in the Iran vs Iraq war)

This war was a mistake - the Coalition is not winning the war and although it achieved its aim of getting rid of a dictator, it has strengthened the resolve of other enemies - insurgents and Al Qaeda. The WMD was a flimsy excuse - when it looked like there wasn't any evidence, it went ahead and invaded anyway

How can you compare this to 1944? The 4th Reich was posing a direct threat to all of Europe. Saddam did not even have the resources to successfully attack its smaller neighbours. Remember that Saddam did not directly pose a threat to Australia.

Back to the topic - this looks to be a war of attrition and no one really wins. A country is being torn apart. The best thing to stop the war is a strategic withdrawal of invading forces. For that to happen, negotiations have to begin. I don't pretend that this can happen easily because of distrust on both sides.

But spare a thought for the 1/2 million Iraqi citizens who have died. How many did Saddam kill before that?

Posted by: Flynn on October 12, 2006 10:07 AM

It was a U.S. Commander that initially said 'We don't do body counts', well guess what, in the end it may just be the body count that changes the global view on this war.

Can we actually win this war in Iraq, or even go close to helping restore democracy so Iraqiï¿½s can self-govern?

I donï¿½t think we even know what winning the ï¿½War in Iraqï¿½ really means, or whether it is at all possible under current conditions.

One thing is for sure, we havenï¿½t quite reached a tipping point in public opinion just yet, but it would seem we are getting much closer than we have been in the past (Vietnam could also serve as an example of how this war may turn).

I know it would be a bit naive to think we can extract ourselves from this conflict tomorrow, but a crucial question for our government is: ï¿½Which came first, the invasion or the insurgents (Islamic extremists)?ï¿½.

I think they will find that the Iraq invasion has given those wanting to fight a holy jihad against Western infidel forces a legitimate alternative to Afghanistan, allowing them the opportunity to embed themselves within fractured and lawless factions of Iraqis who are unhappy with the invasion and/or the subsequent occupation and interference by Western forces.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was harbouring terrorists as well as providing training grounds, which made it a legitimate terror target.

Now we have two major wars, of which the costs in human and monetary terms could be staggering in the long-run. Iraq was a war of choice, and a very costly one at that.

Meanwhile, other terrorist groups around the globe seem to be freer than ever to plot against other Western targets as well as recruit and increase their support base.

And, according to Bob Woodwardï¿½s new book, State of Denial, Woodward allegedly claims: ï¿½Itï¿½s getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. Thatï¿½s more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forcesï¿½.

And what does Mr Bush think about all the hoopla? Well, he is quoted as saying: ï¿½I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting meï¿½, referring to his wife and Scottish terrier.

Posted by: John McPhilbin on October 12, 2006 10:08 AM

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

what more needs to be said?

Posted by: ben on October 12, 2006 10:12 AM

Clearly this war is a crime against humanity.We wentto war based on lies,we now stay at war based on false fears.Iraq never was a breeding ground for terrorism until the coalition of the so called willing and not very able decided to invade a soverign nation.It was an illegal invasion based on lies.
John Howard you have blood on your hands,you fill this country with more fear and terror than a million Saddam Hussains.You are a liar and a murderer and should be held accountable for all the deaths in Iraq along with your partners in crime.But no your a preacher of peace- I LOVE YOUR PEACE JOHNNY.
Own up to your lies and distortions- AWB,CHILDREN OVERBOARD,IRAQ (no wmd) tampa,the plight of aboriginals and women of this country.We have bigger social issues here to worry about.Wake up to yourself Johhny Oh and all the dim wit Australians who keep voting for him.I wonder what that sais about the colour of our necks.All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others
Good luck Australia

Posted by: Raed M on October 12, 2006 10:12 AM

Anybody with half brain, looking at the ethnic and religious structure of Iraq would know that removal of Saddam would result in fissioning of the nation and lead to civil war. The democratization from without worked out in Germany and Japan because in both cases we dealt with almost monolithic nation states with well established traditions of governance, public life and independence. Iraq, like most of the Middle East is an on-going experiment in incessant meddling by outsiders (mainly US and UK ) and slow evolution of local aspirations, pushed back and aside whenever it suits main powers. Every action bring about a reaction. We owe Iraq reparations and apologies for the unholy mess we created. In an ideal world, George, Rummy, Dick, Tony and John would be brought to account for their criminal stupidity in a court of law. Alas, we don't live in an ideal world.

Posted by: Verbum on October 12, 2006 10:13 AM

Is religion the promblem. Religion comes down to what you believe. Everybody believes something we just gotta make sure we believe the right thing. Where does athiesism take you, no law. Where does committed Islam take you - violence. Where does committed christianity take you - Mother Teresa and the like.

Posted by: David on October 12, 2006 10:15 AM

I started off opposing the second war on Iraq. But now I'm all for the US to stay the cause.

It's sucking in a large amount of US revenue, albeit most of it goes straight to Bush's pocket through the profiteering arangements where his family and friends supply everything from bullets to body bags. So America maybe bled white but for Bush & Co this is riskless profit through self-hedging contracts. Hence he's "staying the cause".

Iraq also tarnishes the image of the "invincible" US armed forces and exposes its vulnerabilities and provide good case study for America's rivals.

The reasons that I'm all for "staying the cause" is that the US is a very powerful country and it takes a long time to weaken financially, militarily and morally.

With putrefying wounds like Iraq helping, its strength and prestige will decline over time and eventually be a superpower no more.

I feel deeply sorry though for the Iraqi population who suffer so much. I'm not even sure if its worth such cost to rid the world of the biggest tyrant it has ever witnessed, but I guessed the Vietnamese had paid it already.

Posted by: Allan Z on October 12, 2006 10:16 AM

Did anyone ever think democracy could be achieved by force? As Michael Franti of Spearhead says,
"You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace."

Posted by: simon on October 12, 2006 10:20 AM

It was incredibly poor judgment on the part of George Bush to go there thinking that the US would be welcomed as some sort of liberator. The same for John Howard tagging us along.

Now that the stability in Iraq has been destroyed, the "Coalition of the Willing" can hardly just walk away. Although that is ultimately what happened in Vietnam - probably for the better in the end.

Posted by: John Harvey on October 12, 2006 10:24 AM

In the 12 days of October, 34 coalition troops and close to 400 Iraqi civilians and security forces have been killed. Iraq has become such a shameful example of Western arrogance that such figures warrant only the briefest of mentions on our television screens or newspapers. The general apathy to such news is a glaring example of what Naom Chomsky calls a 'manufactured consent'.

Cast your minds back 4 years ago - the UN General Assembly , Colin Powell dramatically produced a vial of white powder and told the world that Saddam had tons of Anthrax powder just like this , that the US knew this for certain , Tony Blair produced his new infamous '15 minute dossier' ,in which he warned us all that Saddam's troops could deploy biological , chemical and maybe even nuclear warheads in 15 minutes , John Howard preached that Saddam was an imminent threat to his neighbours and the region that he and his arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction were just waiting to strike and he needed to be stopped. These were the justifications for war. There was no talk of him being an evil oppressor or dictator (the world is full of these) , there was no emphasis on democracy (some of our closest allies still shun this) and what has become tragically obvious, there was no talk of what would happen afterwards.

Each and every Australian was lied to and deceived , plain and simple. Yet 4 years on it seems we simply accept that our Government lied to our faces. There is no questioning, no accountability.Can the conscience and morality of the Australian people be bought with shallow promises of tax cuts, and wage increases? , has the fighting Australian spirit of justice , truth and doing the right thing been anaesthetised on a diet of big brother,dancing with the stars and hello magazine? it seems so.

This war has no legal basis , many nations , saw their participation in such a war as a scar the moral psyche of the country and have withdrawn their troops. Australia though stands proud alongside nations such as Estonia , Latvia , Kazakhstan ,Slovakia and El Salvador as those nations willing to sell their conscience for a price. It does not take a Political scientist to see what such fledgling nations can gain from the worlds most powerful economic and military power, but , perhaps Mr Howard can tell us what he sold the integrity of his people for.
The Government through false promises, and outright lies and by appealing to our most basic selfish desires has managed to gently caress the conscience of the Australian nation into a deep moral slumber and manufacture a consent or rather a state of apathy towards the daily slaughter in Iraq.
Each and every one of us who calls themselves an Australian and who continues to remain silent is complicit in this immoral and unjustified war , their hands are covered in the blood of innocent Iraqis.

All coalition troops be they US , UK or Australian are an illegal foreign occupying force. Under the UN Charter the right to legitimate resistance to such a force is enshrined.As such any military action against such troops is justified.We must accept this one truth if we are willing to accept the countless untruths of this vile war.
If the coalition troops were welcomed and wanted in Iraq then they would not travel in armoured columns , they would not live behind heavily fortified bases,they would not be targeted every single day by Iraqis demanding they leave.

Today more Iraqis die daily then they ever did under Saddam, today most Iraqis have no Electricity yet the 'Green zone' is a 24 hr construction site for the largest US embassy anywhere in the world, today Iraqis who live in the worlds 5th largest oil reserve line up for 6 hours for fuel whilst coalition tanks and humvees seem to never stop...

2500 years ago Plato observed that 'the greatest oppressor always first appears in the guise of protector', it seems some truths are eternal.

Posted by: Zaid Khan on October 12, 2006 10:24 AM

Iraq may have WMD = war against IRAQ

North Korea has them and has been testing them = Nothing.

Posted by: k on October 12, 2006 10:28 AM

What does it matter what we think? Not much for three reasons.

1) Im wondering how much that is told to us is actually true. Such media misrepresentation asks questions as to whether there is more going on in Iraq than we know about. Until we know what really is happening, I dont think we can say with any confidence about what we should do.

2) It's not us thats enduring the effects of the war, its the Iraqi people. And judging by most credible media sources, the Iraqis seemed happier under Saddam Hussein. While I'm safe in my uni library writing this, an Iraqi might be dying thanks to American/Allied gunfire. I dont really think its my call to say what should happen to the Iraqi ppl. Thats pretty much how we got into this mess in the first place.

3) The poll above suggests most Aussies want out of Iraq. Well since when does public opinion count for much in the eyes of Bush/Howard (apart from election ballots that is)? While Bush is happily meandering about how he wants to instil democracy in Iraq, his nation is losing any sense of democracy it once proudly held.

And unfortunately, as long as Howard continues his puppy dog act, we will never be far behind the U.S. In riches or ruin, tho probably the latter.

Posted by: vas v on October 12, 2006 10:30 AM

Every news report on killings in Iraq says they were done by Terrorists. Why are our reports not able to give us a clearer view of what is really going on. Surely some killings are anti Sunni, some anti Shit'a , some anti American, some anti Western, and some just anti anything.

Could we not get some perspective on who is killing who, and even if we do not understand, some thoughts on why.

Yes it is a MESS, but desribing every action as Terrorist, just promotes the Al-Queda Brand name.

Posted by: Jon on October 12, 2006 10:35 AM

In response to Weade's post that Japan had a few things to do with Second World War - I agree. But bear in mind that Japan did not start it - it merely brought the US in. The war WAS started by an European. Japan's bombing (and I won't go into the discussion of whether that was justified) also started the Nuclear age and now we have the North Koreans as the latest member of that club.

Also, with respect to Concerned's message - I agree, Iraqis should be managing themselves. But it is a realisation, I am afraid has come three years too late. There are other Muslim countries / regions other than Malaysia and Indonesia that are democratic - Bangladesh, for one, Dubai (albeit a city) for another. Same can be said about Brunei (Although monarchy, it is not oppressive).

It is not to do with whether Muslims can understand Western style democrarcy or not - the problem of the Middle East has come from decades of double standard and hypocrisy as well as exploitation from the West, not to talk about its support for some of the tyrants that once ruled (or still ruling) some of the countries. If we are to export democrarcy and stability, we have to be honest enough to look at ourselves...

Posted by: SH on October 12, 2006 10:36 AM

Fanatical, fundamentalist terrorists. Now if we can get the US to admit this is what they are, we'll be moving in the right direction.

As for Australia's part in all of this. It should never have participated in the first place.

Posted by: A on October 12, 2006 10:38 AM

Many people appear to be blaming this sectarian violence on religion. These people see the conflict as essentially a rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis, and argue that it the religious differences between these groups that are driving the conflict.

The reality, of course, is much more complex than this. Shiites in Iraq have traditionally been regarded with suspicion because of their ties with Shiites in Iran. Iran and Iraq have been at war for most of the 80's, mostly fuelled by the West, particularly the US. In those days, Saddam was on the CIA payroll - his task was to weaken Khomeini's Iran. It was in the interests of the governments of both Iran and Iraq to divide people along religious lines to justify the conflict.

Religion is irrational, but is unfairly being blamed for this civil war. The root cause is, as usual, economic: control over the middle eastern oil fields. Religion is merely the justification used by leaders to lead their flocks to slaughter.

Posted by: merops on October 12, 2006 10:41 AM

Now that's it's a mess, what are you going to do US and the "Coalition of the Willing" ? Will you be willing to clean it up or Was the devil you knew (Saddam) better than the Devil that you didn't know and now is causing you big headaches and deaths by the hundreds and thousands, not to mention the broken lives it's leaving behind.
We know because our family members (Christians) are stuck in the middle of this whole mess and guess who is being attacked, hurt and killed - CHRISTIANS. Now that's all very fair isn't it?

So what have you achieved in the end? Except to suck more oil out of Iraq and the blood (life) out of its citizens!

Posted by: ASSYRIAN on October 12, 2006 10:42 AM

The Lancet's figure of 600,000 is highly questionable as is their method of arriving at this number. That said whether the total is 6 or 6 million all these deaths are tragic but pulling out from Iraq and letting it degenerate into either a civil war or another dictatorship is not really an option.
Unless of course you are so petty minded that you don't care how many people die in as long as the US is embarassed.

Posted by: James on October 12, 2006 10:44 AM

I would like to think the opininons and views of Australians represented here are taken notice of, but unfortunatly as with all such matters, we have been sold down the river by world leaders with no morals or backbone and they have a reputation of not listening to their people.

The invasion of Iraq cannot be justified in any reasonable measure, the mess that we have now been involved in is an appauling and disgraceful contribution to death and destruction.

If we now are to act responsibly (although we did not before) we must start withdrawing from the "war" and start cleaning up this mess. The appropriate response is that of a "policing role" not a war against an enemy.

The terrorist does not have a country or a willing people or a soverign right of homeland to defend as with the usual construct of what war is. The original mess was and is a bunch of well armed and vicious hooligans that need to be policed. The local people, including the Iraq government, need to be protected and supported until they can be self sufficient in maintaining law and order - it did not help that they had a corrupt leader in Saddam H, but this was part of the cause, not the only cause.

The so called "left" view is not a smug one of I told you so, it is a responsible one that opposed the "conservative right" view that is continuing to blindly follow the USA into a stomp fest of "I am stronger than you so I'll take over the fighting". The USA and us by association obviously are out of our depth with any intelligent solutions.

Blasting away at what amounts to a violent bully does nothing for the combatants credibility other than establish them as an even bigger bully.

Australia is in a prime position to assist Iraq with restoration of order and good government, but we have to deal with the problem and not continue to blast away causing more havoc than was there in the first place.

Because we are global neighbours and because we have been involved we now have an obligation to help not hinder restoration. This will require a complete turnabout by John Howard - not something he is either brave enough or strong enough or smart enough to do - perhaps Kim Beazley can? I only hope someone is and they need to come forward now!

Posted by: Glenn :) on October 12, 2006 10:46 AM

GET A LIFE LEFTIES !!!

America brought Saddam down in Iraq, and down he will stay.

Nothing can ever change that.

Just deal with it.

USA! USA! USA!

Posted by: cerdic conan on October 12, 2006 10:47 AM

Hey Johnny Howard get your head out of bush rear end and start thinking about your own country's needs and not the oil i mean the needs of America!! Be a man Johnny!!

Posted by: Steve on October 12, 2006 10:48 AM

I can recall saying to my wife when the Iraq invasion was launched - "No good will come of this. A civil war will follow and it will give Muslim extremists the excuse that they need. America will get bogged down in an absolute mess of it's own making."

Now I am no prophet and I don't think that I am a smarty pants for watching my prediction come true. But I would like to know how it is that your average Joe could see the bleeding obvious and yet the triumvirate of the stupid (Bush, Blair and Howard) and their cast of thousands of "intelligence experts" could not?

It is time to acknowledge the truth that the situation in Iraq will not improve while the American coalition remain. They must withdraw from Iraq and hope that the country can do as good a job at getting itself together as America did of tearing it apart.

As for our leaders - they should be dismissed for incompetence and brought to account for the tens of thousands of lives that have been sacrificed and the countless more who have suffered thanks to their recklessnes.

Posted by: Averagejoe on October 12, 2006 10:51 AM

Does anyone really expect Howard to show strong leadership and resolve and condemn the war in Iraq, and actually admit that its all a huge deception by an incompetent Administration.
Come on, Howard is a weak puppet and an accomplice in this crime, he will be running, hiding, lying and deceiving to protect his pathetic lame arse.
Australians need to awaken from their malaise, our Countries future is in need of outspoken citizens who know the truth and will say enough is enough.

Posted by: bubbles on October 12, 2006 10:52 AM

The war against terror is over.

World War III has begun.

Posted by: Mat Ballard on October 12, 2006 10:53 AM

I think it was Mark Twain that said "The navies of the world could float on the blood spilt by religion" Bush and Howard along with that goon in england all profess to be religious, but all they are interested in is the oil supplies in the Middle East and not one of them cares how many die so that they may get their filthy hands on it. Iraq chose Suddam Hussain let Iraq sort out their own problems. If the 3 stooges had any decent thoughts about helping people get rid of despots why did they not go into Zimbabwe and get rid of Mugabe, I'll tell you why, Zimbabwe has'nt got any oil.Menzies followed the war mongering yanks and got 500 of our youngsters killed in Viet Nam, and stupid Howard is just as dumb. The yanks want to own the world and must be stopped. 5.500 nuclear warheads pointing at targets around the world and now they want everyone to panic about North Korea owning just one. We will never have peace until we get rid of religion.

Posted by: gus warner on October 12, 2006 10:56 AM

I'm reading Woodward's book at the moment and it's sobering.

The "war" was just an extremely thinly veiled excuse to ensure American's hydrocarbon supplies for the next 50 years. Consequently the septics have little Johnny over a barrel (no pun intended) - we can't pull out ... AU sold its soul to the US over the last few years (just read up on some of the "free trade" agreements).

Forget the terrorists ... forget religion ... they are just all red herrings.

The ultimate expression of capitalism is war and this is capitalism at it's finest. Australia being a capitalist dictatorship (because that is what modern democracy is) has just towed the line and gone in boots and all.

Make some noise people ... if you want the troops home write to your MP ... protest .. just do something.

Posted by: James on October 12, 2006 10:59 AM

no solution: stay, ouch!, go, ouch!

rewind: was there another approach to managing the Iraqi regime? there was an array of non-military options not only not used, but not investigated back in the early noughties.

lesson: think again before you shock and awe lest the aggressor be trapped by their own war.

Posted by: no future on October 12, 2006 11:00 AM

High marks for trying to introduce democracy and free markets to Iraq but low marks for underestimating the insurgency and the casualty rate.

Posted by: JB on October 12, 2006 11:00 AM

It looks like the Cult of Mithras, oh sorry Christianity has failed in its latest crusade. I need oil, lets support 'moderate' corrupt dictators in the Middle East to get some. A bit of torture, killing, stealing, and executions are nice.

These are the Western values that the people in the Middle East have seen since 1917. I am sure they must be thrilled to see 'democracy' arrive.

Posted by: Tool on October 12, 2006 11:05 AM

Let's really look at this.

How did Saddam come to power? America helped get him here.

Does that not make America indirectly responsible for all those whom Saddam killed? Why then do they not share his trial?

If these figures are correct, then the US is the biggest killer the world has ever seen.

Posted by: sonja on October 12, 2006 11:05 AM

"Terrorists", "insurgents", "Islamofacists". For ALL the labels the western media place on those fighting the coalition forces in Iraq, no one has called it what it really is: A legitimate resistance against a brutal oppressor. Over 70% of Iraqis want ALL foreigners out and about the same number support attacks on coalition troops. If we are there to bring democracy then let us actually 'LISTEN' to the Iraqi people, obey their wishes and leave them be.

AS bad as Saddam may have been (according to western hype) he never killed as many people as Bush's war has, and you can bet if given a choice Iraqis would go back to Saddam's Iraq rather than facing daily carnage and humiliation that is American democracy.

Posted by: jim on October 12, 2006 11:10 AM

Saddam the puppet was installed by the US to be used as a strong man against the Iraqi people. He did a good job of it. So good that the West supplied him with chemical and biological weapons to use on the Iranians and Kurds.

It must have been in 1989 when Saddam went to the US stood at the White House when George Bush said he's our boy.

Posted by: North Korean on October 12, 2006 11:11 AM

We should all worry about how easy it was for Saddam Hussein's regime to outsmart Bush and Howard.

Even from the kangaroo court where he stands on trial for his life Saddam Hussein has been able to lead his army.

They had twelve years to prepare for this invasion. Clearly they planned effectively.

Posted by: Ted on October 12, 2006 11:13 AM

Regarding this deluge: The Boys from the Bush decided they could simply remove the Sad-dam (damn!) wall and the waters behind would just trickle down into the river bed, nice and easy, a Mesopotamian river of truth, justice and marketing opportunities. Hey, why the hell not! Moses held back the Red Sea! And Ronnie Reagan held back that other Red Sea! You just gotta beleeeeeev!
And now the full force of the blood-red flood is bearing down on those good ol' boys. No problem. We just gotta beleeeeeev a little bit more. Everyone, all together, belEEEEEEV.
Only one voice rises above the screaming waters - a tiny pet dog is yapping with all its might from the Bush lap. On its collar, just by the leash-hook, is the name "Johnny".

Posted by: Onofrio on October 12, 2006 11:13 AM

"above the wretched reality experienced by millions Iraqis during the years of sanctions (during which time Saddam built 30 palaces for himself)."

And where did Saddam get the money for his palaces and weapons? Well, $300,000,000 of it came from our very own AWB.

Sadaam was an unspeakable tyrant but the US and CoW have not made anything better for the Iraqi's and have made it even worse than it was before.

More people are dying every day during the occupation than were dying under a murderous dictator. Great improvement isn't it? Somting we can all be ver proud of!

Posted by: huh on October 12, 2006 11:19 AM

We're fighting the wrong war! Go into any inner city or urban fringe area of Australia and that will become apparent.

1 in 4 Australian children is abused or neglected. 1 in 10 adults suffers from alcoholism. 4 in 10 adults suffer from some form of mental disease. Domestic violence is prevalent in 25% of Australian relationships.

Imagine what we could do with the billions we're throwing at the War on Terror to help our own?

Posted by: Marc Kempff on October 12, 2006 11:19 AM

The INVASION of (sovereign state) Iraq was always going to be immoral and without the permission of the international community. The US went against all advice. This invasion was planned before 9/11., and was "sold" as having a "terrorism" connection. The multiple levels of deceipt from Washington have resulted in the unstoppable nightmare that now is the Iraq war. Bush, Cheney, etcetera are now faced with the consequences of their actions. John Howard's involvement of Australia in this fiasco, doesn't bear mentioning, but the results of that are obvious, too.

Posted by: Sam McNally on October 12, 2006 11:21 AM

Sadam had Iraq under control

Posted by: mbruin on October 12, 2006 11:21 AM

It does not take a genius to see that when a central goverment is toppled many factions will fight a bigger share of power. Only an idiot assumes that the ideals of democracy and utopia would stop power grabbers. This idiot unfortunetly happened to be this time a person of immense power, George W Bush. The sad fact is, despite the huge demonstrations that took place in an invain attempt to stop the war, presented a perfect exit strategy for pragmatic conservative politicians like John Howard, instead he followed the idiot. One positive aspect of the tragedy of Iraq is that it presents a lesson for any half witted person to see the duplicious nature of western politics: on the one hand it is said to be grounded in the ideals of democracy and human rights, on the other tiptoeing the line with the superpower is what ends up happening over and over again..

Posted by: G Beydoun on October 12, 2006 11:22 AM

I love reading entries that begin with things like "the leftoids" - or "Howard Haters"........

HEY!!! Gues what! I do hate Howard, his government and the mean spirited, divide and conquer philosophies behind them.

Until you banish all voices to the left of Adolf - I'm allowed to do so.

This government lied bare faced to us about Iraq, trained assualt teams in Dubai (illegal to do so here I imagine) and let them lose on Australian families protesting at docks.

This Government bails out mates and relatives (ala Ethanol debacle)when it suits.

This government lies about kids overboard, lies about torture, couldn't care less about a thousand years of Habeus Corpus - villifies any ehtnic group ad-hoc because it knows people are basically tribal and will respond to percieved threats.

This government snubbs Kyoto.

This government doesn't believe people have the right to organise - unbelieveable - back into the saltmines and factories people!

This governement rewards the rich with tax cuts and punishes the poor with onerous work for the dole policies and restrictions - chain gangs by any other name.

This goverment is supported by right wing idealogues who I am absolutley sure would extoll the virtues and benefits of book/baby burnings were it to be espoused as "good for Australia".

This mob is rotten - lying to the electorate whenever it siuts.

The only larger concern that the moral bankruptcy of the Howard regime is the apathy of a public who, while making a quid, simply couldn't care less.

I once breated a friend for voting right (different country) and he replied to me "Well, at least if I vote fo rthe bastards of the right I know what I'm getting - if I vote left, they pretend to be egalistarian but end up being as big a pack of bastards as the right - and I don;t like being deceived".

I'm starting to think he had a point. If Howard is chocolate, then Beazly is carob (admittedly a lot more carob).

We have no choice - there are no alternative policies. A sense of desparation seems to be falling over anyone with a modicum of socail conscience (or from the rights perseoctive - "pinko commies").

Prediction for next years election?

Green & independent votes to go through the roof.

Posted by: Reuben on October 12, 2006 11:23 AM

Whats to discuss?
anyone who doesn't know how wrong the invasion of Iraq was and how those involved are war criminals,is a brain dead moron.
Saddam is a statesman in comparison to Bush,Howard and Blair.Lots of brainwashed idiots calling him names doesn't make him a criminal.

Posted by: Larry on October 12, 2006 11:24 AM

Two equations to think about:

1. (Maybe "Weapons of Mass destruction" + oil + starving people = invasion by "Coalition of the willing" to save world and people from mindless dictator)

2. (Confirmed "Weapons of Mass destruction" + starving people = diplomacy by "Coalition of the willing" to appease mindless dictator)

Conclusion? I'll leave it up to you.

Posted by: Superb on October 12, 2006 11:33 AM

Iraq a mess?? It certainly is, thanks mostly to Bush, Blair and Howard. Saddam may not have been everyone's idea of a great leader, but what have they got now? Absolute chaos. Bush is a bigger war monger, liar and terrorist than any Iraqi including Saddam. As for John Howard - he's a despicable lying, manipulative little axxx-licker. As someone in this forum said - and I have been very heartened to read most of these posts - JH has blood on his hands and lots of it too. How that man can sleep at night is beyond me. When Bush, Blair and Howard are gone, I hope the world will start to become a better place - although there's always greed, lying to get what one wants (in this case, oil) and justifying killing hundreds of thousands of "collateral damage" as the Americans so callously call the innocent men, women and children victims of this barbarous war.

Posted by: Rob the original on October 12, 2006 11:35 AM

Bush, Blair, Howard, and the rest of them who backed this senseless, unprovoked invasion and tipped the apple cart should all be on trial at the Hague as WAR CRIMINALS. They are MASS MURDERERS.

Saddam Hussein was a monster to be sure, but he's now got less blood on his hands that the leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing!"

I think Bush is delusional. He somehow thinks he is doing "Good." I think he's a genuine moron (I don't use the term "moron" as an insult -- I use it as the correct term for someone with a sub-normal IQ).

He might get off on a plea of "stupidity and naivety" but his puppetmasters, and lap-dogs like Blair and Howard won't.

However, I think we need to recognize that America and America's leaders don't always stand for the same things. Blatant anti-Americanism is not the way forward. There are tens, if not hundreds of millions of decent Americans who abhorr what their government does (stomping on their constitution, curtailing their freedom, and running around the world trying to impose ideals on others) just as much as we do. Let's not overlook that.

Posted by: Tim on October 12, 2006 11:39 AM

The cure is worse then the disease.
Bush, Blair and Howard must be put on trial for crimes against humanity. Tell your children what Howard did because history will be rewritten. Nothing is to low for this lot and their sick appetite for power.

Posted by: Mechior on October 12, 2006 11:46 AM

The Iraq war was a great chance to fire weapons, these have to be replaced and that means American Jobs - weapons are the last thing America still does better than anyone else.

American foriegn policy is simple - the ones firing the most American guns are the good guys.

That GWB and JWH can't be bothered to count the dead children doens't mean that they don't have the blood on their hands.

Posted by: MD on October 12, 2006 11:46 AM

Turkey warned USA before the invasion that if they invade Iraq, they will open the Pandora's box. How right they were...unfortunately.

Posted by: Adam on October 12, 2006 11:46 AM

Plain simple english
USA
Goals to world: "Stop the so-called war on terrorism"
"Disable weapons of mass destruction"

Goals behind closed doors: Plan and perform 9/11. purpose to begin the 'war on terror' and spread islamophobia at the same time.
Invade Iraq and kill as many innocent lives as possible, at the same time spreading hate and disaster between the iraqi people.
purpose to consume and retain iraqs
rich oil and save americas dying industries.

Posted by: Michael on October 12, 2006 11:48 AM

When 88% of Australians pleaded not to go to Iraq, our "leader', dismised us as "The (sniff)'mob' if you like".All Australians must now bear the consequences of having our wishes disregarded by John Howard, while we are insulted by having this enormously complicated question reduced to partisan slogans ("cut and run" vs "stay the course").
Consultation of the Koran will reveal that if the object of the struggle is that the invaders (us) leave, then the struggle is over.
Worth considering?

Posted by: Thimk! on October 12, 2006 11:54 AM

I advocate a troop rotation.

Bring back all the troops now in Iraq.

Replace them with Bush, Blair, Howard, and all their friends and families. Issue them all with tin hats and Swiss army knives, then dump them in the middle of, let's see, Falluja.

I'm sure they'd be greeted as liberators by the weepingly grateful Iraqi citizenry with flowers and all the rest of it.

Posted by: Geoff Saunders on October 12, 2006 11:56 AM

I'd say that America has done a good job. They went it to get rid of that mad-man, and in the process uncovered what the people of Iraq really are. They hate each other more than anything. Its not American or Australian troops that are killing iraqi's, its there own countrymen.

I do not blame Howard or Bush, i totally blame the iraqi people. They have a golden opportunity here and they are totally blowing it.

I want evidence that this violence is spurned by Coalition involvement of which you cannot provide, but you dont under stand the attitude of the Iraqi people. They need a civil war to bring about some Nationalism

Question for our Al-Qeada supporters and muslim leaders at home. Isn't it against the koran for muslim to murder another muslim. So why isn't the religious leaders up in arms about that, but hey, we christians should all be put to death.

Iraqi's and the Muslim World really need to get their house in order.

Re: Adam, where sir are you getting those figures?

Posted by: S on October 12, 2006 11:57 AM

It took George Bush to make Saddam Hussein look good. The killing should stop but how?

Posted by: Not surprised citizen on October 12, 2006 11:59 AM

There is only one way to help promote this country back to a level of normalcy that was destroyed by the Illegal invasion (for well known non existent WMDs) That is to get all foreign intervention out of their country and pay them massive amounts of money, in reparations for the evil we created, so they can rebuild it themselves. Once they're minds are involved in rebuilding and the supposed enemies hands toil together to rebuild their shared country they will find the things we all find in common when we work toward an eventual goal.
It is us, in the "coalition of the willing" (willing to destroy for lies) that are fomenting this civil war. Americans and Poms both have been caught setting car bombs and the like trying to set one side against the other. Divide and conquer has been the idea from day one. Israel wanted their strongest enemy divided. So the yanks obliged. With a little help from the two poodles.

Posted by: Richard Hardiman on October 12, 2006 12:00 PM

The suffering imposed on the Iraqi people by the Western powers is one of the greatest war crimes of the past 100 years.

Things were bad under Saddam Hussein and the UN sanctions, but they have got horribly worse since the violence of 'shock and awe' was unleashed by the USA and its allies in 2003.

One dictator gone, hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead. How on Earth can anyone justify that?

Posted by: Lachlan Malloch on October 12, 2006 12:04 PM

What is happening now is just the natural progression of human history. People will blame it on religion / oil / influence etc which is all true to an extent, but ultimately it is about the rise and fall of nations.

Every great power reaches its apex eventually, and then over-extends itself and begins to deteriorate. It has happened to Greece, Carthage, Rome, The Hapsburgs, The Ottomans, The Mongols, France, Great Britain and the USSR to name a few. It is happening to the USA right now.

George W Bush and his government are the natural evolution of American politics, ie: the triumph of style over substance. They are fast food government - make a powerful speech here, flex the muscles there, but not actually do anything useful.

None of the key decision makers had ever been to war save for Colin Powell, and his uncomfortable body language spoke volumes when he made his address to the UN on the eve of the invasion. An old saying goes 'war is sweetest to those who have never tasted it'. Bet it aint so sweet now.

There is now no solution to the Iraq mess short of flattening the whole country and starting again. The Americans will be stuck there, and we with them, until either violence forces them to leave, or domestic opinion allows them to leave. There will be no useful solutions forthcoming from the Bush administration. Australian troops will be stuck there as long as Howard is in power, because withdrawing would be an admission that he was wrong. And we all know John is never wrong.

Posted by: jboy on October 12, 2006 12:04 PM

"In what was nominally a Democracy rule was held by the first citizen" Thucydides

Bush is just another Tyrant like Saddam Hussein, the war has killed more civilians, and the treatment of any prisoners has been documented as worse than under Saddam. This is not US bashing, these are facts. Like most places there are many decent people in the US, but it is the government of the day that cause the problems.

Time that he was tried for War crimes.

Posted by: mekhir on October 12, 2006 12:13 PM

If we cut & run the terrorist will win. BS catch phrase for "WE SCREWED UP BIG TIME AND WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO FIX IT" Now it is time to start bringing those responsible to justice. If the UN had backbone GW, Blair & Howard would be starring in Judgement at Nuremburg

Posted by: Peacnik on October 12, 2006 12:13 PM

600, 000 - that's not counting the 500-800, 000 (mostly young children) killed by US/UK/Australian "UN" sanctions*. So the figure must be well over 1,000,000 people dead as a result of USUKAUS foreign policy, most of whom would otherwise be alive. This must clearly be teaching these folks important Values of Western Civilisation. Of course, we must stay until the job is completely done.

No way. Stay a while, stay forever. WE have to stay until that mess is cleaned up. I even favour conscription for it, because that's what Australian values are all about, right? Our values are worth dying for. They are certainly better than the values of various people in Iraq, which involve beheading and bombing.

Or not. It was an ugly country when Saddam was the boss, and it still is. We shall scatter our problems to the four winds, and we shan't lose a wink of sleep over it.

Question: Why would the USA need such a quantity of missiles that could blow up planets?

The USA has no regard for human value. Its presence and power rests on its military force which makes them a form of tyranny cloaked by a silk of democracy crafted by effective, widespread, psychological and discrete propaganda. How could you represent democracy and freedom when they possess an enormous supply of nukes capable of wiping out civilisations and countries as whole?

Remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Almost all of those hundreds of thousands of people who died from the atomic bomb that the US dropped were innocent civilians and villagers.

Why did the US drop the bomb and how could it say it brings freedom to people when it is in reality taking their very own lives? Clearly the US rules and conqueur by force and terrorism and by committing genocides against humanity and innocent populations that it fears may affect its so called evil,greedy, and materialistic natured "national interest" which in reality is the interest of the politicians and upper wealthy class within the USA who have a direct and reciprocal relation and benefit between each other.

It is true that Religion has driven many wars and battles, however one must realise that Religion it self is not the source of war, but it is people who exploit religion and adopt it for their own 'personal' materialistic needs that makes religion appear problematic.

People, be fair to each other, treat each other as equals, with respect, with disregard to what a persons skin color is, how they sound, how big or small they are, how much they know. Appreciate people for who they are as an individual no matter how physically differant they may seem or what their values are. We all come from 1 source, and our ancestry traces us ALL back to an alpha make and females, so we ARE all 1 family regardless of how your mind percieves, and remember that we ALL die and will get the opportunity after that to know the truth in full.

Posted by: Joe on October 12, 2006 12:22 PM

The western world should never be tolerant of the Muslim religion. moderate or not. We should not even be allowing them to immigrate to Western countries.

Read this article and you should see that there are fundamental reasons as to why Muslims and the rest of the world will never successfully mix, and as such is why we should have a policy of zero tolerance to requests for special religious rights or calls for tolerance, internationally and internally.

As cruel as this sounds, if they choose to destroy each other then this is a good thing for the future of the world. They will need to sink very low before they will be forced to change of their own accord.

Posted by: jimhaz on October 12, 2006 12:28 PM

"Who care about all the right/wrong crap now. Its simple: you make a mess, you clean it up." posted by Reginald Shoe at October 12, 2006 10:05 AM. I agree Reginald. But do you think the politicians will go there to clean it up? Not on your life buddy.

Posted by: Phil on October 12, 2006 12:30 PM

it's the mess caused by a CowBoy American president.

I am sure he won't be elected next time, but american taxpayers pay big price for rest of their lives for georgy's fatal mistake of invasion.

If american tax payers do not realise the urgency of removing bush, they end up paying for North Korea, Syria etc etc. So wakeup americans before it's bloody late

Posted by: GlobalGuru on October 12, 2006 12:38 PM

It's a mess of staggering complexity and no government can say that they weren't warned prior, if not by objective experts then surely by their own faded memories of vietnam and similar quagmires of ineptitude and folly.
It was founded on a manifest lie - WMD - that the heads of government responsible for proliferating have yet to be properly called to account on: Bush, Howard and Blair.
It was founded on hypocrisy: Saddam Hussein and his 'evil' regime. I have a few words for those that believe that second lie: Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea, Afghanistan. Why no action here if freeing people from tyranny is the point?
It was founded on greed: google Dick Cheney, US Vice President, Haliburton and Iraq reconstruction. Haliburton's labyrynth subsidery companies have profited enormously at the expense of the Iraqi people and the links with power brokers in the current washington regime are sickening.
And lastly, our own shame with AWB. How can we in all consciousness attempt to simultaneously fund, profit from and destroy a regime? I am stunned that the AWB scandal has not already forced ministers to resign.

Not only is Iraq a mess for us and our service people, it is a profound mess, trajedy and daily nightmare for the people of Iraq.

The ramifications of this stupid and avoidable course of action will be felt for many, many generations to come. Whether the decimation of Iraq for its people, the neglect of afghanistan and other apalling regimes of violence and oppression or the senseless escalation of tension and violence caused by the adoption of this conflict as a crusade for terror.

We need another peace movement, and we need it now. I'll settle for a change of (or an intelligent and accountable) government in the meantime.

Posted by: James on October 12, 2006 12:38 PM

The Iraq war seems to have become this generation's Vietnam, which was that generation's Spanish Civil War, which in turn had similarities to the fin de siecle generation's Boer War. None of the previous three were easily 'solvable'; all ended with a convincing military victory, not always by the side supported by the fashionably contrarian. In all cases, both warring sides committed atrocities which were one-sidedly decried by partisan supporters and camp-followers. The eventual outcomes were often surprising: the South African Boers regained much of their power a decade after losing the war; Spain's Generalissimo Franco declined to support his fellow fascist dictators in WWII; and, until recently, it could be well argued that Vietnam was a case of winning the war but losing the peace.

The Iraq situation is just as complex, and throws up straight-forward/simple/simplistic reactions and/or solutions in the same way. You can understand the reaction of "Why should young Americans/Britons/Australians stay there just to stop two sects of an alien religion murdering each other ?", because those pulling the triggers and detonating the explosives are by and large Iraqis mass-murdering fellow Iraqi civilians (which could well have been the case anyway when Saddam eventually claimed his 72 raisins).

Another complexity: are those urging Western intervention in the Sudan's Darfur the same people who decry Western intervention against the equally murderous Saddam Hussein ? Anyway, just like poking your nose into an intra-family squabble, intervention is more than likely to have all the protagonists lined up against you, until you've gone home, and they can get back to doing to each other what they do best.

And the ultimate irony: Saddam, as far as we can tell, was no Islamist seeking a Taliban-style theocracy. Yet, the end result of the intervention may be that part or most of Iraq - you'd reckon that the Kurds wouldn't have a bar of this - will end up like that.

Remember 1979-1989 in Afghanistan ? - how the USSR sent in troops to prop up a communist government there, which had, inter alia, set Afghan women free from centuries of the sorts of repression that Western feminists froth at the mouth over. Absolutely unintended consequence: the 'Soviet Vietnam' was certainly a factor in ending the USSR itself, and an Afghanistan "freed' from foreign occupation was once again free to suppress half its population, much to the silence of 'our' feminists - "it's their culture", they tell us. And irony on irony: the weapons supplied by the US for the Afghan mujahideen's guerrilla campaign against the Red Army contributed to the establishment of the virulently anti-western Taliban regime.

Lots of difficult questions, paucity of easy answers.

Posted by: Leonard Colquhoun on October 12, 2006 12:43 PM

Bush and his allies are in a tough position. If they pull out, then it means they have failed to bring democracy to the middle east - which was the point of the possibly illegal invasion in 2003. If they fail, then the public will lose even more faith in Bush (+ Howard & Blair).

If they stay, more servicemen will die every week.

Politics is a messy game!

Posted by: Royalist_Scum on October 12, 2006 12:51 PM

The first casualty of war is the truth.

I cant understand why people are so bent out of shape about the politicians lying to the public about the reasons for the invasion. We all know it is a politicians job to lie.

Anyway, John Howard under the Anzas treaty sent the bare minimum force he could get away with to keep our US friends happy. Many smaller countries than OZ sent more troops than Australia.

The decision to send troops was, in the governments view, better for our national interests than in not sending troops. John Howard just had to justify his minimal support to the public by lying as usual.

Anyway, right now I reckon if the troops all go home along with CNN and BBC and all the other media the Iraqis will soon wake up to themselves and realize that no one is watching anymore and that they should all just get on with living.

Posted by: Jock on October 12, 2006 12:57 PM

Surely these figures only confirm what we already knew - Iraq has become a killing field. What bothers me is that we are only given two options to choose from: stay the course or cut and run. It is doubtful that taking either of these options would cut the death rate in Iraq.

Could we not organise some kind of UN peace-keeping effort to take over which would be less offensive to the Iraqi community? Why aren't we looking for an alternative which would see immediate improvements in the Iraq situation? Beazly, you should be on to this!

Of course, the "coalition of the willing" would have to consider giving up its economic interests in Iraq....or is that why we're there in the first place?

Posted by: TomindaGong on October 12, 2006 12:59 PM

Hey, Joe: Re - "we ARE all 1 family regardless of how your mind percieves, and remember that we ALL die and will get the opportunity after that to know the truth in full."

Joe, according to your logic, we all have to DIE to get to the TRUTH. I wonder what "truth" all those dead Iraqis are now consoling themselves with? Do you suppose those departed Shiites and Sunnis are all getting on, now that they're dead? If it's so great UP THERE, let's not linger here any longer. In fact, someone unleash those world-flattening nukes so we can all be done with this mortal coil and arrive together for the big love-in!

Why postpone truth and reconciliation to some metaphysical epilogue? I'm all for truth NOW. It's the lack of truthfulness THIS SIDE of death that has covered Iraq in blood! And truth is never simple. It's certainly not as simple as your vivid denunciation of the US, with its happy hereafter-word. The believers in heaven, American and Iraqi, have made a considerable contribution to the mess, Joe. Religious convictions have not doused the flames, and pie-in-the-sky is neither consolation nor solution.

Posted by: Onofrio on October 12, 2006 1:04 PM

All these over analysis. Invasion, democracy, WMD … blah blah. The fact is simple. Oil! Iraq has a lot of it. Yanks need a lot of it to keep their 1.5 10 tonne SUVs per person, Aircon toilets, etc.

Posted by: sfx on October 12, 2006 1:11 PM

Onifro said: [I'm all for truth NOW. It's the lack of truthfulness THIS SIDE of death that has covered Iraq in blood!]

Well the truth is quite simple. The deaths are now primarily caused by males seeking to control others and get to the top of the roost, by using deadly force.

I mean are the people themselves really killing each other over some minor and irrelevant differences in religious belief - NO, that is a just a facade, a ploy used by the wantabe leaders to delude the people! (though some of the most deluded are).